Return to Transcripts main page

Rick's List

Big Bank Tied to Mexican Drug Cartels?; Tom Tancredo Upsets Tea Party; Where Is the Gulf Oil?

Aired July 27, 2010 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(JOIINED IN PROGRESS)

MICHAEL SMITH, "BLOOMBERG MARKETS": And that cash later made its way up into the United States through Wachovia and other banks.

RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Did you hear that? Americans are listening to you. You're joining us from Chile.

Folks, we're talking about Wachovia apparently getting nailed for being involved in money-laundering that seemed to be for the benefit of banks or associates in Mexico that were tied to the drug cartels.

Now, a lot of folks are saying, how -- how did the authorities finally get the information that tipped them off to this -- to this connection? I understand that it may have had something to do with some kind of jet, right?

SMITH: Yes. It had to do with several jets, actually, and planes that were caught smuggling cocaine either in Mexico or in the United States for these cartels, and the DEA started it all by investigating how these planes were financed.

In other words, how did they purchase these planes which were bought in the United States? Used aircraft were bought in the United States, ended up being used by drug dealers to move cash. And they figured out that a number of the planes, the money was transferred to the buyer -- or from the buyer to the seller via accounts at Wachovia in Miami. And that's how they got onto the trail of Wachovia.

SANCHEZ: So Wachovia has copped to this, right? They have come out and said, look, we have got to improve this. We may have messed up here.

SMITH: Yes.

No one at Wachovia has admitted to breaking the law and knowingly laundering money for drug dealers.

SANCHEZ: Right.

SMITH: What they have admitted is to not complying with U.S. law, which requires any bank to monitor every single transaction they do for possible drug money-laundering suspicion -- suspicious activities. And if they see those patterns of activities, they have to first of all, report it to authorities. And if it's serious enough, they report it to law enforce agencies like DEA, and they shut down those accounts if they can.

SANCHEZ: Well, let me ask you this question. And maybe this is the one that's going to get Americans more upset.

Is it possible, because I'm wondering, if all the information is here, and we have pretty much tied -- you know, crossed all the T's and dotted all the I's for our viewers as we go through this -- why weren't they busted? They either did it or they didn't do it.

And is it possible that they didn't do it because -- let me read to you now -- let me read this quote. It's from your article, but I want you to amplify it for our viewers. This is what a former U.S. Senate investigator said.

"There's no capacity to regulate or punish them because they're too big to be threatened with failure" -- too big to be threatened with failure. Are we looking at somebody who may have impunity simply because, if they go down, they're -- the rest of us will suffer? Again, going back to the earlier model we all talked about several years ago, too big to fail, does that come into this?

SMITH: Well, I -- I have no idea what the actual motivations were behind the U.S. government's attitude toward all of this, but the facts are that, in this case and several of the cases of big banks that were caught facilitating money-laundering, knowingly or unknowingly, instead of prosecuting the bank and their officers under the law, because banks can actually be prosecuted for laundering money, they basically cut a deal with the banks, saying, you pay a big fine, you admit to doing what you did, and you promise to put in place controls that will do the best -- you know, the best job possible at preventing these kinds of activities in the future.

And those are called deferred prosecution agreements. And they have reached those with several banks over the last few years in money-laundering cases, which helps them, the bank, avoid being prosecuted, because, if they're prosecuted and convicted of a crime like money-laundering, the government is required to revoke their charter, which will put them out of business.

And, so, the net result of these agreements is that the banks stay in business and they don't -- nobody goes to jail.

SANCHEZ: Unbelievable. Once again, the statement from Wachovia reads: "We have taken this matter very seriously and since 2007 have invested significant resources and program staff and systems to strengthen protections against the unlawful use of systems by wrongdoers."

They go on to say that, "We're committed to maintaining compliance and effective anti-money-laundering practices and policies and a strong compliance culture across our organization."

So, there you go once again. Just to be fair, that is what Wachovia is saying about this story.

Michael, great job. Good reporting. Thanks. I know we have been trying to -- we have been trying to touch base with you. And you have been traveling all over the world. Finally, we said, the heck with it. I don't care if he's in Chile.

(LAUGHTER)

SANCHEZ: We will -- we will just interview in Chile. So, thanks for making yourself available to us, OK?

SMITH: OK. Thank you very much for your interest.

SANCHEZ: We appreciate it.

As we continue this newscast, I am honored to report that we are the news of record for American Forces Network and we welcome all the troops that are watching us overseas. Here is your national conversation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ (voice-over): Here's what's making the LIST today.

Bell, California, citizens re-revolt.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You all need to go to jail, so that we don't have to pay you back one penny.

SANCHEZ: They overpaid themselves with their money. And they want it back.

Why is the Tea Party movement angry at Tom Tancredo?

TOM TANCREDO (R), FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: What are my options?

SANCHEZ: Director Oliver Stone on Hitler and how he says Jews have hurt U.S. foreign policy. What do you say?

The lists you need to know about. Who's today's most intriguing? Who's landed on the list you don't want to be on? Who's making news on Twitter? It's why I keep a list.

Pioneering tomorrow's cutting-edge news right now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez. Here we go, hour two. Time to pick up the pace of today's LIST for those of you who are just now checking in. The gravy train stops in Bell, California, the small city, great big salaries for its leaders. We're talking about $800,000 a year for a city manager. That's a guy named Robert Rizzo. That's nearly $1 million each year in a city with only 35,000 residents, a city with financial problems located in a state that's broke. And you have seen Rizzo's house, right? Take a look at this. He lives in Huntington Beach. A house that's for sale nearby has an asking price of $1.1 million. He's a city manager in a city 35,000 people. Rizzo's not only -- he's not alone. Here's another one.

The police chief makes almost half-a-million dollars a year -- the police chief. City council members make six figures in some cases, and it's a part-time job.

When the people of Bell found out about this, they went ballistic. They don't have that much money. Last night, they confronted the city council. Have you seen these? They asked for their hides, if not their butts. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And right now, I am angry and want to let you all know you need to all go to jail, so we don't have to pay you back one penny.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What we would really like to do is see every one of you in jail. I would like to see all of you in the orange jumpsuits that says L.A. County Jail on the back of them.

That's the best thing that could ever happen to you. That is on my bucket list.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: The city council voted unanimously to cut their own pay by 90 percent to $8,000 a year. The mayor says he will finish his term without any pay and he won't run again. As for the city manager, he resigned last week.

And you may recall, we talked to the California attorney general yesterday and he told us he's investigating.

Cristina Garcia is with BASTA. That's the Bell Association to Stop the Abuse. Basta means enough in Spanish.

So, Cristina, are you there? Thanks so much for joining us.

CRISTINA GARCIA, BELL ASSOCIATION TO STOP THE ABUSE: Thanks for having me.

SANCHEZ: Were you at that thing last night?

GARCIA: Yes, definitely. BASTA pulled together the community and asked them all to come out and have their voices be heard. So, we were all there together.

SANCHEZ: What's the thing that has you the most angry?

GARCIA: I mean, the list goes on forever. But I think part of is that the -- what were they thinking and how do they keep justifying this? Even after Bob Rizzo resigned, the mayor still came out in his favor and blasted "The L.A. Times," saying that they didn't have all the facts. And all you have to read is $800,000 and how much more information do we need?

SANCHEZ: Do you blame yourself? I don't mean the direct you. I mean the indirect you. Do you blame yourself as a citizen of a city where they were doing this and somehow you didn't know it until it came out in some report? Do you feel like you should have known it?

GARCIA: You know, some of the community members were not involved and so they were not informed and they were not asking the questions. But, really, I don't want to blame the community because there were lots of members of the community trying to get information.

Part of the problem is our public records act. While we do have -- we're supposed to have access to this information, it's not a comprehensive enough public records act. So, what would happen is that you would request information that we knew we had a right to and they in turn would -- just would give us the runaround.

But since October, I have been trying to get total compensation. They know that I don't have the means to sue them. I don't have a huge institution behind me like a newspaper does. I don't have $20,000 to go hire a lawyer and sue them. Even if I'm going to get my money back later, in the meantime, I still need to have that money up front.

SANCHEZ: So you think that they did this secretly, surreptitiously.

Let me ask you a question. I understand that it was I think in 2005 or 2006 there was a law passed in California that said, look, if you're in government, you can't pay yourself some kind of outlandish salary.

So, your particular city kind of changed its charter, so it didn't fit into those types of cities, those small cities, that allowed them to get away with this. Now, did you know about that? Did anybody in the city -- did -- was it in the papers? Was there a discussion about this?

GARCIA: No. I mean they put a -- as a council, they could call a special election, and that's what they did. And they did very little to inform the community that there was an election going on.

And the city of Bell runs their own election program, so they could decide how much information they want to put out there for the community to be informed and aware. And so this kind of goes back to the fact that we have these predators that come into these communities and the fact that they changed their charter lets us know that this was a premeditated move.

SANCHEZ: I have got to tell you, I think most people -- and I have gotten thousands, thousands of tweets and e-mails from people who watched what you guys did last night and said in many ways what you did, what you reflect is a microcosm of what's going on around the county.

And a lot of people are saying, look, I wish we could all get together and do that type of thing, because it's not only in Bell, California, it's in other places.

And we're going to dedicate ourselves to checking into this here on RICK'S LIST.

Thanks so much for -- thanks so much, Cristina, for joining us and for making us aware of this story. Let us know as it moves forward what...

GARCIA: Please...

SANCHEZ: Go ahead.

GARCIA: Follow up on our Web site, basta4bell.com. We're going to be pushing forward with the pressure to have them resign in a recall. But a recall costs lots of money, so we're asking people to reach out and help us. And we're going to be transparent. All of our expenses and any money coming in will be made public on our Web site.

SANCHEZ: All right, good for you. It's a citizens action committee. And we're glad that you were able to join us and take us through this story that's we have been following now for the better part of a week.

Tomorrow will mark 100 days of the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The oil is there, right? I mean, it's been gushing for months. So, why aren't any -- why aren't we seeing this since in -- when we look at pictures or aerials from the Gulf? It's a really important question to ask. The left and the institutional media generally haven't asked this, but maybe it should be asked. That's just ahead.

Also, Oliver Stone, no stranger to controversy, and now he's in more hot water. His comments about Jews and Hitler sparking a firestorm. He's now reacted. We have got both, the statement and his apology. That's next on the LIST.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Welcome back.

I do lists for you, and one of the lists that we specialize on every single day or bring you is what we call the roundup list.

So, here we go. Ready? One, two, and three.

Number one, sketches from inside the Chicago courtroom where Rod Blagojevich's lawyers are making their closing arguments. Have you been following this? The jury could get the case very soon. It's the ousted Illinois governor's corruption trial. His defense rested last week. That means his lawyers, by the way, in news-speak. Blagojevich did not testify. Number two, look who's going to get a new trial, Warren Jeffs. He's the fundamentalist Mormon offshoot leader convicted on rape charges, accused of forcing a 14-year-old girl to marry an adult member of his religious sect. He was sentenced to two consecutive terms of five years to life in prison.

Today, the Utah Supreme Court threw out those convictions, saying the convicting jury was given bad instructions.

Number three, open mouth, insert foot. That's Oliver Stone. He is a three-time Oscar winner today. He says he's sorry for what he said in an interview with a newspaper. "The Sunday Times of London" printed what he described as -- quote -- "Jewish domination of the media" -- stop quote.

Stone's publicist released a statement today calling the comments clumsy and the words "Jews obviously do not control the media or any other industry" was part of his apology.

What do you think? Is that really a sincere apology, and when will these Hollywood guys learn to be careful what they say? Or should they? We want to know what you think. That's the roundup.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm excited to have my kids come to BYU, and I will show them on the wall -- the wall of rules, like, no motorized couches, and I will be like, that was me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: A motorized what?

Yes, he's a college student and he's proud of his work. Too bad the work involves a couch on wheels. It's a new invention from our nation's future leaders.

(LAUGHTER)

SANCHEZ: That's ahead.

Also, is it possible after months of oil gushing out of the Gulf that most of it is gone? Wait until you hear what one government official is saying about the crude. That is your national conversation. I'm Rick Sanchez. We're going to be right back. And that's next on the LIST. Where is it?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Democrats -- Democrats in the Senate have tried to pass campaign finance reform, and they have failed. They have been blocked by Republicans -- this just now coming in, new information on campaign finance reform.

The Democrats had hoped that this legislation, known as the Disclose Act, would bring transparency to the campaign contributions from -- from corporations and labor unions and other special interests, which were, according to many Americans, able to ramp up political donations in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case.

The bill would have required organizations to pay for political advertising to disclose the names of their donors in the ads, similar to what is required now of political candidates for federal office.

However, Republicans blocked this vote. So, it's not going through. It's been defeated. Senate Republicans have blocked it 57- 41. They needed 60. So, they're three short. It's 57-41. Republicans say they had concerns the bill would curb freedom of speech and tilt campaign spending in favor of Democratic candidates. So, now you are in the know.

I want to tell you about something else that we need to be in the know about. If we do not see the oil in the Gulf, does that mean that the oil is not there, that it's gone? With BP's oil cap securely capped for now, we're seeing less and less oil on the surface.

And Chad and I have been talking about this an awful lot, and it finally got me thinking. Why don't we do a segment on what -- where the hell it is? The question, whether the oil is gone, is one that many are asking.

So, let me ask the question. On the surface, the answer is yes. The government's on-scene coordinator tells CNN that they have -- they're having trouble finding any oil. Here. Listen to -- listen for yourself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This oil is rapidly breaking down and there's very little oil left. We have a few streamers that we located earlier off of Grand Isle that perhaps can be skimmed. But right now, we're not seeing many targets for our skimming fleet of 780 skimmers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: So, they don't see it. They're having a tough time finding it, right? Really good news, right?

But here's Admiral Thad Allen. He doesn't want to pop open any champagne bottles just yet. So, here's how he -- the perspective he gives it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE SITUATION ROOM WITH WOLF BLITZER")

ADMIRAL THAD ALLEN (RET.), NATIONAL INCIDENT COMMANDER: I am not ready to declare victory, nor should anybody. We still have beach cleanup and marsh areas that are affected, but we certainly are starting to gain a little bit of upper hand here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: All right, so let's try and break this down. The oil is on the surface. We don't really see a lot of it, but there's a list of questions that we want to take you through. One, did the oil break down? Did it move? How much of the oil is trapped in the marsh? Are there pockets of oil still under the surface?

There's one fellow who just tweeted me right now, and he said, "It's in a deep-sea current circulating around the world."

Joining me now to help answer the questions from my list is Ian MacDonald. He's a professor with the Department of Oceanography at Florida State University. And Chad Myers is joining us here as well.

All right, Professor McDonald, thanks for being with us, sir. We hear so much about this.

IAN MACDONALD, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF OCEANOGRAPHY, FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: And the knee-jerk response from those of us in the media who have followed this for years is to be concerned for our planet and almost have what I would call a liberal response, a lefty response: Oh, my God, there's oil in the Gulf, so it must be terrible and it's going to be there and it's going to kill everything and destroy the planet.

But, yet, when you look at it and when you start looking at the data, you wonder, well, where is it? Maybe the dispersants worked.

What is your take?

MACDONALD: Well, the dispersants certainly did work, to some extent. They sank the oil. They broke it up and they -- they broke up the surface layers.

And we are at the end of act one of this seemingly unending tragedy.

(LAUGHTER)

SANCHEZ: Yes.

MACDONALD: And the oil is not on the surface of the water anymore. It's not coming out of the well. So, that's good news.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

MACDONALD: Unfortunately, a lot of the oil has been moved ashore and has moved into places where it's going to persist for a long time.

SANCHEZ: But the -- but I will be honest with you, sir. What I have seen are some pockets of some -- what do we call them, tar balls in parts of Louisiana, a little bit in Pensacola, a little bit in Mississippi and Alabama, but nothing like the Valdez spill pictures that we saw back when that happened. Where's that oil?

(CROSSTALK) MACDONALD: Well, if you go to Valdez right now, you have a hard time finding the oil immediately.

But as soon as you dig down on those rocky beaches, you find patches of oil. And the same thing will happen if you go to Pensacola. If you take a core down, you will find about 18 inches down, there will be layers of oil and layers of tar ball. And that's down there below the oxygen level on the beach. And so that oil is not going to break down naturally. It's going to be there, unfortunately, for years.

And I'm afraid the same thing applies in the Louisiana marshes that got heavily oiled. Where the oxygen levels are low below the ground, that oil is going to be there for years.

SANCHEZ: You know what it is, though, Chad? And as we talk to the professor, as Americans, we're so used to visual mediums, that, if I don't see it, if it's not obvious to me, then I have a tough time reacting from the gut to it. Am I wrong?

(CROSSTALK)

CHAD MYERS, AMS METEOROLOGIST: No. No. You're exactly right. Yes, we need to see the video.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

MYERS: You know what? I can have a great story. And if there's no video, it's not a story until we get video. Right. No one cares unless they can see it.

All right, Professor, I have a question for you. Let's just play Monday-morning or Tuesday-afternoon quarterback. Would it have been better to not put the Corexit 6500 or whatever the number was -- would it have not been to just let it float to the top and skim it? Because it didn't seem like all of that much oil really hit land. It didn't seem like we had a wind for a long enough time...

SANCHEZ: That's a good -- that's a hell of question.

MYERS: ... to really pollute like we thought it would. Maybe the oil really would have been an awful lot worse if we didn't put that Corexit in there. But could we have skimmed it and burned it and done a better job now? And not saying they did it wrong. I'm not...

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Yes, without -- without the dispersant.

MYERS: I'm not implying that.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

MYERS: If we knew then what we know now, should we have done something different?

MACDONALD: It's a tough call.

It would have been a different scenario altogether. One problem that they had and one reason that they needed to treat it with dispersant offshore was that the volatile organics coming off the oil were actually harmful in some cases, or at least obnoxious, for the safety workers ,the response workers offshore, and they needed to suppress that floating oil to make the atmosphere more breathable for the people on the oil spill site. So, that was one factor in all this that we can't deny. Absolutely, oil will break down on the surface.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Is there any data yet, aside from everything that we have heard from people suggesting it might happen or could happen, but is there any real data suggesting that the combination of this oil with this dispersant really is dangerous and we will be feeling the effects from years and years to come, any real data, not just opinions?

MACDONALD: I have always been less concerned about the dispersants and more concerned about the oil and gas itself in terms of the ecosystem impact.

SANCHEZ: Interesting.

MACDONALD: We released millions of gallons of dispersant, but we released hundreds of millions of gallons of oil.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

MACDONALD: And oil is a toxin. And oil persists in the environment for years, as we know from Exxon Valdez and as we know from Ixtoc. So, that -- those hundreds of thousands of gallons, some of them are going to be with us.

SANCHEZ: That's interesting that you would say that, because we have heard just the opposite from -- most people who have gone on television, cable news shows, et cetera, have said, oh, it's the dispersant. I'm really concerned about the dispersant.

Here you have got a guy who just came on and said, look, I'm less concerned about the dispersant than I am the oil itself, which is akin to what you've been saying, as we have been following this thing.

MYERS: Depending on the dispersant, one gallon of dispersant can actually disperse 20 gallons of oil -- or barrels and barrels, whatever -- however you want to work it.

And so if this really worked someplace and now it's down there and the organisms are eating it, fantastic.

SANCHEZ: Professor, thanks for being with us, sir. We appreciate your time.

Professor Ian MacDonald...

SANCHEZ: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: ... joins us there with -- at Florida State, FSU, as they say. He's a Nole. He's a Seminole.

MYERS: I love it how you can get the opposite side just sometimes, because everybody has an opinion, like a nose, right?

SANCHEZ: Mm-hmm.

MYERS: So, there you go.

SANCHEZ: That's why I wanted to do this segment.

MYERS: You got it.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: And I'm glad we did it.

Tom Tancredo, boy, talk about a guy who is a lightning rod. He's practically the poster boy for the conservative movement, right? So, why are Tea Party leaders, Tea Party leaders, at odds with him, in fact, angry at him? That's ahead.

The LIST scrolls on. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SANCHEZ: OK. We just did that segment and I got a lot of you riled up. You bring a different opinion, and I want to share it with everyone else.

Look, we always say on this show what we do is we make lists of what you have to say as well. You connect to us. We connect to you.

Here we go, to the Twitter board. Ready?

"Rick Sanchez, you can't see the oil because the dispersants made it sink. It's still there, still killing ocean life and rotting boats." That's one.

"Because you asked, spilled oil degrades, oxidizes, vaporizes, drops to the seafloor or gets consumed by microbes over time."

"It's the Where's Waldo game. Oil is out there, but it's hard to find."

Well, those are the things that you guys are saying after watching that segment. There are many more. We thank you for your contributions.

Take a look at this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Shame on you! Shame on you! All of you!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Yes. This is like a citizens revolt. We've been following this now for the better part of a week, and it just grows and gets worse every day.

These are the residents of Bell, California, in their own words, as they call out some of their leaders for their monstrous salaries. That's ahead.

And then a lot of people are accusing college students for wasting their time partying and slacking off, but some of them come up with some pretty ambitious ideas. Even -- well, it involves a couch on wheels. All they need now is the video game, right?

This is what I yell at my kids about all the time.

Anyway, that's my story. Here's yours. It's coming up.

THE LIST continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: As you probably know, there is no such thing as a free lunch, but sometimes the price is just way too high.

Let's do "Fotos."

What started off as a casual meal in New York turned into a burrito brawl. I'm not sure what they ordered, but caliente is what they got.

They threw firsts, chairs, and a restaurant's sign. One guy even had a chain. How's that for school?

It looks bad, but how much damage can you really do with aluminum chairs? Right? The place is called Blockheads, but it was actually the patrons who lived up to name.

Also in New York, look at this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We think it could be a tornado. The tree is entirely gone. We're in New York City.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: All right. When was the last time you heard the words "tornado" and "Bronx" in the same sentence?

IReporter Beth Alice sent that to us.

We thank you, Beth.

Dramatic video of the storm in progress. In case you're curious, the last time that a twister hit the Bronx was 1974. And did you know it snowed in Miami in 1977? Just one of those things that's in my brain that had to come out.

Now, this is what I call going nowhere fast. Whoever said couch potatoes are unproductive?

These kids from Brigham Young University are actually quite industrious. Look at their motorized sofa.

You might think it's cool, but the school did not. It banned their invention.

You can see all of our "Fotos" whenever you want at our leisure on our blog at CNN.com/ricksanchez.

So imagine if this happened to you. A guy in California says he paid $45 just for a box of negatives. You know, he was shopping at one of those antique store kind of things. Right?

Well, it turns out those $45 have now turned into $200 million. How is it possible? What did he actually get? What were on these pictures?

Brooke Baldwin has trending stories for us, and she's bringing you that report.

Why couldn't we be that lucky?

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I know. And we have the guy live --

SANCHEZ: You do?

BALDWIN: -- on the other side of the break.

SANCHEZ: You got a hold of him?

BALDWIN: I'm good.

SANCHEZ: You did this?

BALDWIN: It wasn't me.

SANCHEZ: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Some guys have all the luck in the world. How is it possible?

Brooke Baldwin is joining us. She does trending topics. Trending topics means the things that people are talking about out there on Twitter.

BALDWIN: On the Internet.

SANCHEZ: On the Internets and the Googles and the e-mails and stuff. So, this guy is lucky enough to buy something for, like, $40- some. And it's going to be worth hundreds of millions?

BALDWIN: Hundreds of millions.

SANCHEZ: I hate him.

BALDWIN: I know. I'm jealous, too. I am like the most unlucky person when it comes to this kind of thing.

So, this Fresno guy goes to this warehouse garage sale kind of thing, like, 10 years ago. He buys a couple of wooden boxes, talks the guy down, actually, from 75 bucks to 45 bucks.

He takes them home. Inside the boxes are these glass negatives. But little did he know these negatives are pictures of Yosemite. They're also of San Francisco.

They were taken by famed --

SANCHEZ: Drum roll, please.

BALDWIN: -- drum roll -- famed -- Ansel Adams.

So, take 45 bucks. Now translate that into a cool $200 million.

SANCHEZ: Oh my goodness.

BALDWIN: Let's introduce you to the lucky guy.

Rick Norsigian joining us from L.A.

And sir, I feel like I should congratulate you, first and foremost. Nice job.

RICK NORSIGIAN, BOUGHT ANSEL ADAMS NEGATIVES AT GARAGE SALE: Well, thank you very much.

BALDWIN: Let me first take you -- take us back 10 years when you were, you know, buying these wooden boxes. Did you have any idea what was inside?

NORSIGIAN: No, not as far as who it was. But I just happened to walk over to the box and see the glass negatives, which I have never seen any glass negatives. And anyway, I worked there as a young man, so I knew where it was at as far as the images, and ended up negotiating and picked up the box.

SANCHEZ: But wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

Did you just say that you knew they were there before you bought the box where they were in? In other words, you knew that there were negatives there and that those negatives might have some value?

NORSIGIAN: No, no, no, no.

SANCHEZ: OK.

NORSIGIAN: No. I went there to go look for a barber chair.

SANCHEZ: OK. All right.

NORSIGIAN: And so I happened -- the box happened to be there.

BALDWIN: And so you thought, hey, you've never really seen glass negatives, so you thought maybe that was cool, so you bought the box with glass negatives. But then, Rick, at what point in time did you think, hmm, maybe I should take these to an expert and maybe -- I don't know if you developed the pictures or -- what was your big clue that this may be more than just some photographer taking pictures of, I don't know, Tiburon in San Francisco?

NORSIGIAN: Well, when I sent some copies to Mary Street Allander (ph) and Jim Allander (ph), they were the ones that kind of told me whose handwriting was on the envelopes. And they had told me that it was Virginia Adams, Ansel's wife.

So right away, that got me pretty excited on that part of it.

SANCHEZ: Yes, I would say.

BALDWIN: OK, so that was clue number one. But then at what point did you take these negatives -- and this is -- talk to me about this whole process, this authentication process. I think they talk about proving provenance, say, if you have a painting.

It's kind of like a criminal investigation. You had burden of proof and you had all kinds of experts trying to prove that this was, in fact, Ansel Adams, right?

NORSIGIAN: Right. It was several years of doing that, which we got meteorologists, handwriting experts, Bob Moehler (ph) from Boston Museum, Patrick Alt, an expert in photography.

BALDWIN: Why would you need a meteorologist? Explain this to me. Why would you need a meteorologist to look at these pictures? What in the world would they be looking at?

NORSIGIAN: Well, we found out that one of Ansel's original pictures -- and it was of a tree which I think you had there -- that one right there.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

BALDWIN: OK.

NORSIGIAN: That one is mine, but we found one just like Ansel took. And the meteorologist checked the clouds, all the snow pack, and the shadow on the ground, and determined that those were taken within minutes of each other the same day.

SANCHEZ: Are you a wealthy guy? I mean --

NORSIGIAN: No.

SANCHEZ: I mean, you look like you're like, hey, yes --

NORSIGIAN: No. I'm a painter.

SANCHEZ: So I got $200 million extra now. You know, I'd be freaking, man. I'd be jumping up and down like the next idiot out there going, "Oh, my God. I just bought something for $45 and I've got $200 million now in my pocket I never had."

What are you going to do with the money?

NORSIGIAN: Well, number one, of course, I'm going to take care of my family --

SANCHEZ: Good for you.

NORSIGIAN: -- my grandkids. And then I'm going to -- my wife's been with me for -- putting up with me for all these years, and I want to get out of hot Fresno in the summer and hopefully get to the coast.

SANCHEZ: French Riviera, probably.

God bless you, man. You're a great guy.

NORSIGIAN: Thank you very much.

BALDWIN: That is amazing. And it's just nice to hear the full story from him.

Rick Norsigian, thank you. Enjoy it.

NORSIGIAN: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: I hate that guy.

BALDWIN: I mean, 45 bucks. I am no good. Take me to a garage sale, I find trash. But some people find treasure.

SANCHEZ: Good for him. You know what? Good for him.

He was lucky enough to get it. And it seems like he's a very decent guy who knows exactly what he's going do.

BALDWIN: Good guy.

SANCHEZ: And he's thinking of his wife, he's thinking of his family.

BALDWIN: His family.

SANCHEZ: He's a loving dude. Good for him.

BALDWIN: Those are nice pictures.

SANCHEZ: Here's another story that we're going to be sharing in just a little bit.

You're going to join me at 8:00, right?

BALDWIN: Yes.

SANCHEZ: OK. Look forward to it.

Islam is right at the top of the list when it comes to the largest religions in the entire world. Yet, there's a man in the United States who's running for governor in Tennessee who thinks that the way of getting votes and getting people to like him is just to slam anyone who's a Muslim. His eyebrow-raising comments have put him on a particular list. You probably know what list this is, but we're going to accentuate it when we come back, nonetheless.

Stay with us. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez.

Got some new information just coming into us now.

There's breaking news right now from the war in Afghanistan. We now have the names of a dead and missing sailor. Here's the news on this.

The two sailors, or service members, they went missing last week. Apparently, there's an update on the story.

Let's get right to Barbara Starr. She's our Pentagon correspondent, and she's been following these developments with DOD, the Department of Defense.

What are they telling you, Barbara?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Rick, just a few moments ago, the Pentagon announced the identities of one of the sailors who is now listed as having died of his wounds in this incident, another sailor still missing. And duty status, whereabouts, unknown.

Let me tell you the names of the two involved.

The young man who died, his body now recovered, Petty Officer 2nd Class Justin McNeley, 30 years old, of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, having died of his wounds sustained from the July 23rd incident, when apparently he and the other sailor got into a firefight in a Taliban stronghold south of the capital of Kabul.

The identity of the other sailor, the U.S. sailor still missing and believed held by the Taliban, Petty Officer 3rd Class Jarod Newlove, 25 years old, of Renton, Washington.

The Pentagon announces that search and recovery efforts remain ongoing. They are trying to get Petty Officer Newlove back. A military officials tell us, Rick, that Sunday night in Afghanistan, they got word of where they could go to recover the petty officer's body. The families were notified of these events, and now the official announcement made of their identities.

One U.S. service member remains in Taliban hands, it's believed. And, of course, it is worth reminding everyone for one year now, Private 1st Class Bowe Bergdahl of the U.S. Army also believed to be in the hands of insurgents -- Rick.

SANCHEZ: Now, you know, the obvious question here is, is there a possibility that these guys left the base of their own doing, or were they in a place they weren't supposed to be? What do we know about the circumstances of how these guys found themselves in this precarious situation?

STARR: You bet. The circumstances remain murky and under investigation.

What the military has said is last Friday night, they apparently left their compound in Kabul. They were assigned to a training unit, a NATO training unit, got into an armored vehicle and drove south for about two hours, south of the city of Kabul, into a place called Lowgar Province.

We've been there. That is a known Taliban stronghold, a very tough neighborhood down there. And they were noticed by the Taliban, noticed to be American service members, and got into a firefight.

It is believed that is when one of them died. The other one captured.

Nobody, Rick, can say what the circumstances are, why they left the base in a single vehicle -- because you know the military always goes in convoys -- why they left, what they were doing down there -- Rick.

SANCHEZ: What a story. Barbara, thanks so much for bringing us up to date on this.

And obviously we're going to have more developments on this as we flesh this out with our fine correspondents like Barbara Starr.

By the way, we've got some visitors here today.

Hi, guys. Happy to see you.

This is part of a group that comes in every day to be part of our studio audience here as we do the news. And they teach me what to say while we go into commercials, for example.

So we'll do a little bit of that in just a little bit.

Who is on "The List U Don't Want 2 Be On"? That's coming up next.

Stay right here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Here we go.

There is no secret that religion and politics can be a dangerous combination, but every election cycle some politician seems to forget this. And it's landed one politician on this day on something we call "The List U Don't Want 2 Be On."

This is the lieutenant governor of Tennessee, Ron Ramsey. He's running for the Republican nomination in the state's race for governor. Polls show that he's currently in third place, with just nine days until the voters head to the polls.

So now that the scene is set, I'm about to show you the video at the center of this firestorm. We are told it was shot at a campaign event earlier this month. At one point, Ramsey talks about how he's against the proposed expansion of a mosque in a town that's just south of Nashville.

Ramsey takes questions from several people, but this one sparks the entire firestorm. I want you to listen carefully. Here it is.

Hit it, Rog.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is more of a national threat in this part of the state of Tennessee. We've gotten threats. It's just made in our country for Muslims.

What's your stand?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Did you hear that? The man asked the lieutenant governor what he thinks about the threat invading our country from Muslims.

All right. Right off the bat, Ron Ramsey said he's all about freedom of religion. But then he continues saying this --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LT. GOV. RON RAMSEY (R), TENNESSEE: Well, you can even argue whether Muslim is actually the religion, or is it a nationality, way of life, or cult, whatever you want to call it. But certainly we do protect our religions, but at the same time, this is something that we are going to have to face.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Now that the video is making the rounds, the Council on American Islamic Relations is urging Ramsey to meet with Muslim leaders in Tennessee. The group released a statement reading in part, "We see a disturbing trend in our nation in which it is suggested that American Muslims should have fewer or more restricted constitutional rights than citizens of other faiths."

But so far Ramsey seems to be defending his comments. In a statement to CNN, Ramsey says, "My concern is that far too much of Islam has come to resemble a violent political philosophy more than peace-loving relation. It is time for American Muslims who love this country to publicly renounce violent jihadism (ph) and to drum those who seek to do America harm out of their faith community."

Now, here are the facts that Ron Ramsey needs to know.

Islam is the second largest religion in the world following Christianity. There are more than a billion Muslims around the world, and there are a reported seven million Muslims right here in the United States.

So maybe the lieutenant governor ought to think twice next time before he makes real insensitive comments about an entire faith that the rest of us as Christians who are maybe in agreement with him or not find that he should be just a little more careful with what he says.

And that's why on this day he lands himself on "The List U Don't Want 2 Be On." the list that

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: By the way, the group out here was talking about some of the stories of interest.

Raise your hand if you guys think that the situation in the Gulf, the oil in particular, has been somewhat exaggerated, that there's really not as much oil there and it won't be as much of an ongoing problem as we think. Raise your hand if you agree with that.

OK.

Raise your hand if you think it really has been fairly reported and it's accurate to say that that has been a devastating situation for the people in the Gulf of Mexico.

And most people agree with that. There you go.

That gives us a pretty good idea of what Americans are thinking when it comes to the situation in the Gulf, because we've been going back and forth on this for quite a well.

There's another opinion I want to share as we go on -- before we go to "THE SITUATION ROOM."

Look at this. "Bell citizens need to attend their city council meetings. They failed to pay attention as concerned citizens."

Now, that's interesting when you consider that, because a lot of people have been watching the situation in Bell, California, and they seem to be coming to the conclusion that although the politicians really seem to be screwing up, citizens there should have probably known more about what the politicians were doing to them.

Also, look at this. "How long did it take the people there to find out just how much those officials are being paid? Voter apathy is the real problem."

I write about this, by the way, at length in my book that's going to be coming up in just a little bit. The book is called "Conventional Idiocy." You can get it on Amazon right now.

And we'll be seeing you tomorrow, as well as tonight at 8:00.

"THE SITUATION ROOM" is coming your way in the form of Suzanne Malveaux.

Take it away, Suzanne.